Answering Missionaries

August 4, 2006


Filed under: Dialogue/Debates,General — answeringmissionaries @ 5:39 pm

[Disclaimer: I personally take no sides on the issue of Qadr or subscribe to any particular point of view at this stage. Thus I am neutral on this subject. Nor am I in anyway associated with the questioner. Br. Shabir Ally clarifies his position regarding Qadr and also responds to certain claims made against him by an individual.]



    Asalamu’alaikum wa’rahmatullah! I hope you are well insha’allah. I would just like to ask you a few questions as i’ve recieved an email from someone and they highlighted a few ‘problems’ about you. after hearing rumours, following the sunnah, you have to verify the news so this is what i have come to do. I dont mean to ask in a rude manner or offend you in any way, i was hoping to find the truth so that i could tell this person to stop slandering and backbiting others as they have done before. anyhow, the person has laid a few accusations which are listed as below:

    Shabir ‘Ally claims that Allaah does not know the deeds of people until they happen.
    He says that all Ahadeeth related to Qadr are not accepted (like the hadeeth of Adam to send people of hell 999) this hadith he said is contrary to Allaah’s mercy.
    Using Aqal (intellect) to judge the Deen.
    He believes that the Sahabah made lots of mistakes in their narrations of Hadeeth and also the Qur’aan (so he thinks there is only one correct Riwayah).
    He accuses our scholars like Imam Ahmad, Bukhari, Muslim and others like the scholars of Jews and Christians.
    In one of the discussions he said that our salaf did not do a good job in replying to deviant groups like for instance; Mu’tazili and Qadaris.
    He accuses the salaf of intellectual stagnation.
    He described the Jihad of the prophet (sallahu alayhe wa salaam) as Olympic games because at the time of the prophet ( sallahu alayhe wa salaam) the tribes of Arabs in the peninsula were attacking each other, the Jihad was a must and no way to get out of it.
    He also described the Muslim prayer as a mixture of western sports and Buddhist mediation.

    please could you respond insha’allah and clarify this. jazakallahu khair akhi.
    wa’alaikum’asalaam wa’rahmatullah


July 23, 2006

Dear Brother in Islam,

Assalaamu Alaykum,

Thanks for asking for clarification. You are indeed following the dictates of Islam in doing so. You could of course do even better. You can, and should, ask the people who are circulating these rumours to furnish the proof for their claims. According to a hadith the burden of proof is on someone who makes a claim. Those who claim that I said what you are asking about have the obligation to substantiate their claim. We should ask them for the exact words I said, and the context of those words. Although the reported statements have some connection with things I have said, they can be best understood if they are reported in the original words I uttered, and if they are given together with the evidence I have advanced from the Quran and the Sunnah in their support. Many of the statements you have asked about have been put in a form that I find ridiculous, and which I immediately reject.


June 9, 2006

Butler with another poor service

Filed under: Dialogue/Debates — answeringmissionaries @ 2:01 am


Butler’s recent tirade against me can only be described as hopelessly pathetic. Recall that in his previous paper, Butler made a number of rather absurd comments. For instance, Butler, who has repeatedly claimed to know “a lot” about the Middle-Eastern culture and has allegedly spent “much” time among different Muslims from different localities, did not even know the most fundamental and simple thing: the meaning of “Assalam Alaikum.” His ridiculous level of ignorance can be easily gauged from the fact that somehow, almost magically, he convinced himself that “Assalam Alaikum” was my name! Worse, he then lied when he described me as a “self proclaimed expert” in New Testament textual criticism, even though I had never made such a claim about myself and had never claimed to be an “expert” in any area of New Testament studies. It gets worse. After making a silly blunder and telling an outright lie, Butler then proceeded to “respond” to some of the things he thought I might have said in my paper even though he did not even bother to read what I had to say carefully and in its entirety!


Patrick is out again

Filed under: Dialogue/Debates — answeringmissionaries @ 2:01 am

You're out!

I was eagerly looking forward to Patrick’s reply to my latest reply to him as I thoroughly enjoyed our discussion and truly respect him. However, I was quite disappointed on reading his brief and strange reaction. Patrick does not engage with anyone of my arguments, but only expresses his disappointment at me. He says that he believes that I will not quite “get it.” Immediately thereafter, he asks his readers regarding what to do when the person you are debating “lacks the mental sophistication to appreciate your arguments?” Here Patrick assumes that he had offered highly “technical” and “sophisticated” arguments which poor me just wasn’t able to comprehend at all. Of course, this is what he likes to believe and he does not bother to present a single example to substantiate his baseless assertions. I don’t quite understand why Patrick reacted in such a strange way. I believe I understood his argument and then replied to them the best I could. If Patrick truly believes that I misunderstood anyone of his arguments, then he should have pointed that out clearly by sharing those alleged examples with his readers. If indeed I misunderstood anything, then I will acknowledge my mistake. But the problem is that Patrick does not offer any such alleged examples and I do not think that he will likely do so in the future.


Part II – detailed response to Steve Hays

Filed under: Anti-Islamic/Muslim Polemics,Dialogue/Debates — answeringmissionaries @ 2:00 am

Steve Hays has come out with another reply to my response to his first reaction.

A lot of my arguments have either been entirely ignored or discussed briefly. Worse, as before, Hays often misreads and constructs a series of straw man arguments. I will provide examples of these as I proceed with my analysis of his comments. Moreover, as before, he maintains his arrogant, condescending and rude tone, something which I will try to avoid as much as possible.

Whatever I say about the Quran is immediately tossed aside with one or two liners. Hays is obviously not interested in an honest discussion where the purpose of the correspondents is to fairly assess the evidence in order to arrive at the truth. As a result, I will subject the Bible to the same treatment just to show how easily it can be “refuted” in a similar manner by someone who has already made up his/her mind.


May 26, 2006

Rambo III – Liberating Butler

Filed under: Dialogue/Debates,James White — answeringmissionaries @ 10:15 pm


Mr. Fred Butler, to whom I replied a day ago, has hit back with another response.

He starts off his “response” by telling a lie. Mr. Butler refers to me as a (emphasis added) Self-proclaimed “expert” on NT textual criticism, early Christian history…” Now, where and when precisely did I claim to be a self-proclaimed expert” on “NT textual criticism, early Christian history…”, or any other field for that matter? When did I make such type of a self-proclamation? NO WHERE. In desperation, Mr. Butler could no nothing more than utter a lie. To set the record straight, I am not an “expert” on any field of study and I never made any highflying claims pertaining to myself in this regard. I only regard myself as a student, who attempts to read as many books and articles as possible to understand the different perspectives.


May 25, 2006

Tackling the Butler and White team

Filed under: Addressing James White polemics,Dialogue/Debates,Shabir Ally vs James White — answeringmissionaries @ 3:07 am

Some time ago I had some exchanges with a few friends of Mr. James White, chief among them Mr. Fred Butler, and a few others, which are to be found here. Later, Mr Fred sought the help of Mr James White and posted a short reply to me.

Here I will attempt to deal with both Fred Butler and Mr. James White.

Before, I begin, I don’t have a very good opinion of Fred Butler and you can see the reason for it by going to the comments section of his debate review. Nonetheless, I will ignore those exchanges for now and just focus on Butler’s latest comments and offer a polite reply. On a positive note, I like the picture of mine Butler added to his blog (remember, me Rambo).


May 24, 2006

Rambo Part II – the second strike: A Reply to Patrick Chan’s “Rambo, drawing first blood”

Filed under: Bible Text,Dialogue/Debates,Quran polemics — answeringmissionaries @ 6:54 pm

Some time ago I posted my reply to Patrick which is to be found here.

Patrick recently replied to this response of mine in a blog entry entitled: “Rambo, drawing first blood”

Besides Patrick, Mr. Steven Hays has also offered a brief reply to my thoughts. Another reply was offered by Chris in the comments section of Patrick’s earlier paper. Chris’ reply was quite complimentary and he did not really disagree with much of what I had to say and, in fact, largely agreed with me. Let me quote a part of Chris’ reaction:


Response to Steve Hays reaction

Filed under: Anti-Islamic/Muslim Polemics,Bible Text,Dialogue/Debates — answeringmissionaries @ 6:53 pm

Howdy everyone!

In response to my response, a Christian apologist, Steve Hays, has also offerred a short reply which is to be found here and here. As you will notice, right from the outset Mr. Hays maintains a patronizing and arrogant tone towards me throughout his brief reply. Needless to say, such an attitude is hardly conducive for a civil and sober discussion/dialogue. Nonetheless, I will try to reply in a civil manner, though I make no promises.

As usual, my original statements will follow “>” whereas Mr. Hays’ reply will be in italics.


May 11, 2006

Rambo strikes back – a reply to Patrick Chan

Filed under: Debate reviews,Dialogue/Debates,Shabir Ally vs James White — answeringmissionaries @ 1:57 am


In response to my comments in his blog, Mr. Patrick Chan later decided to write a detailed and a very polite response to my questions in a blog entry entitled: A little rumba with Rambo. As you will see, Patrick mostly raised irrelevant issues, but I like him due to his decent and friendly behaviour, which is difficult to find in Christian apologists these days. So, later I also decided to write a friendly reply to Patrick as well. Below is my response:


Create a free website or blog at